Digital Destroyed! Film Takes Over! (Not really)

[wogears]

<p>Sorry for the bait-and-switch headline, but <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/black-white-film-in-vogue-as-boots-ramps-up-supplies-after-demand-soars-52087#Pz13OsyJQWcxtpuW.01">this article </a>in the British magazine <em>Amateur Photographer</em> is rather interesting. It says that the popular British chain drugstore Boots has experienced an increased demand for b/w film, and will be stocking 120 roll film for the first time in ten years. I don't really draw any long-term conclusions from this, but I think its significance is real. At least I'm reasonably certain its not all "hipsters".</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I think a lot of what we're seeing with film is people who are interested in shooting film<em> in addition to</em> their digital arsenal. At least it seems to me to be that way based on many questions from people new to film on the forums here and at other sites. It seems that most new film users are broadening their horizons, so to speak. I guess digital capture has become so commonplace, many are just looking for something different, for whatever reason.</p>

<p>And then you have those such as myself that just like using classic cameras where film is the only option. :-)</p>

[Colin O]

Coincidentally I was in Boots in Dublin today and while waiting for my girlfriend to finish picking out whatever it was she was looking for, I decided to browse over to the film section. There were 3 rolls of Ilford HP5 in 120 size, which I was surprised to see. I was wondering how many 120 shooters buy their film in Boots. The boxes were quite dusty though, so I assumed they'd been sitting there a while.

[aplumpton]

<p>Don't know about Boots in Britain, but when I last called into Vistek in Ottawa (they are also in Toronto and other cities) this spring they had a very good supply of different Ilford B&W films and I was able to readily buy Pan F and HP5 in 120 size and at surprisingly reasonable prices (If my memory is correct it was about $6 or $7 per roll with a slight discount). Quite odd, as my search there for Ilford paper for chemical processing was fruitless and every inch of their very modern and spacious store was very much digital oriented. I guess a lot of people with film medium format cameras must be scanning their negatives and benefitting from the larger negative size.</p>

<p>A few doors down the street was a very modest appearing camera store which still carries Ilford darkroom chemicals and papers (up to 11 x 14 inch, few 16 x 20s) but which does not have the same traffic as Vistek and one wonders how long it may be around. Of course, many of the less chain like camera stores will order in Ilford, Fuji or other European photosensitive materials like papers when requested, but do not regularly stock them.</p>

<p>Ilford has been promoting regional darkroom facilities to get younger and other photographers to use its products. As Cory says, curiosity of the photographer often broadens horizons and can help film and silver-based paper to continue.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Having up to date (and supported) scanner would change the scenario, at least for me. Yes, I'd be happy with a clean 16x20's (or similar), but unless you have a fairly competent rig like Nikon 8000/9000...the whole thing with film seem like a dead end. Under the above condition, I'd purchase new refridge and fill it with film....35mm or med format.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[donald_miller5]

What concerns me is the demographics. Most of those who are fueling the interest in film are around my age (64) give or

takea decade and using equipment that is ageing. The younger generations do nothave the nostalgic interest and I do not

see any new film cameras coming on the market.

[aplumpton]

<p>Donald, you are possibly right about the age but what I have been hearing are the keen young photographers who want to explore the existing technology as well as the very latest technology, sometimes simply out of curiosity, or to expand their pleasure. The equipment doesn't date quickly (like the media) and Nikon F3's or Mamiyas or Hasselblads or film Leicas (and the list is much lengthier) are just as up to date in terms of serviceability and quality as anything more recent, and the same can be said for the better enlarging equipment and optics that are fully functional, precise and, best of all, dirt cheap compared to prices a decade or two ago.</p>

<p>Film and silver base photographic paper won't displace digital, but they will not likely disappear, as long as the advantages of their use for some are still there (And we keep buying). I am in your age group so maybe a bit biased.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"The younger generations do not have the nostalgic interest and I do not see any new film cameras coming on the market."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They do have that nostalgic interest. And there are new film cameras being made.<br>

<br>

Most of the interest I've personally seen in film photography is among folks younger than I am (I'm 57). Most folks my age whom I know personally have either long since switched to digital, or use both about equally.<br>

<br>

I lurk on a many different sites with a younger demographic and see some interest in film based photography. Much of it is nostalgia by proxy, an interest in things they were too young to experience but heard about from their grandparents. Or they admire old school photographers and hope some of the mojo will rub off if they use the same cameras, film, etc.<br>

<br>

Several new cameras have been introduced the past few years, mostly either mining the nostalgia vein (mostly from Lomo), or using plastics and inexpensive materials to create affordably entry level large format and pinhole cameras.<br>

<br>

And Fuji Instax film and cameras seem to be doing well enough that many retailers stock them.<br>

<br>

It may not quite fit an earlier generation's notion of "serious" film photography, but it's still pretty close to the late 1890s version of film photography made popular by Kodak's everyman and woman approach. That's a good thing.</p>

[donald_miller5]

That is encouraging

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm neither young nor the supposed demographic (40), but I think what Cory wrote in the first reply is very valid: digital (for better or for worse) has attracted a good number of people to become interested in photography, and as a result a fair number is interested to go beyond the default available - either for historical interest, for the different look of film, for educational purposes, for ... well, whatever reason. Nostalgia by proxy is a big part, but I think not the only one. Using older gear (out of curiosity, out of a want/need for something more tactile and simple, or whatever reason again) is a part of the attraction too, and given how prices go on eBay, I think a fairly reasonable part (it is for me, together with no longer seeing the point of making digital look like film when film is available to get it right from the start).<br /> Personally, the first time I rolled my first own developed film of a reel (indeed not long ago) to see those tiny inversed images that I "created" - a physical product -, well, it might be all sentimental bull and psychological fluff: holding a physical piece does have a fascination that digital lacks (holding a memory card doesn't quite do the same). A good print for me does the same, and by lack of darkroom I have to wait for that sensation for a real 'handcraft' print. There is more sense of accomplishment in it, for me.</p>

<p>That all said, I would not expect demand to be such that retail chains would take it up, let alone in 120 format. Online there are several good shops in nearly each country I know about that sell all B&W needs (film, chemicals, print material) and mostly at really good prices. Even with a revival, we're talking a niche business, so these niche stores do just fine, at least for me.<br>

And I'll keep the DSLR alongside no doubt. Some stuff, it just does better. It'll never be either/or for me, but "and/and" to enjoy the good sides of both.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Here in Bristol, England, there is most definitely an increase in interest in film and especially b+w photography so much so that we are setting up a new public-access darkroom at The Bristol Folkhouse.</p><div></div>

[chris_waller]

<p>View from the other end.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Some think learning long-hand will give them an understanding of the process that will prove valuable to them, and it't not a bad idea.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Chris, is that a DeVere? I'd like to get my hands wet in that darkroom. I'd happily donate my enlargers to a local community darkroom if there was one, in exchange for getting to visit my enlargers once in awhile. I keep hanging onto them, hoping some darkroom space will magically appear in one of my closets.</p>

[finnegan]

<p>I see decided difference in quality between film and digital, film takes it for me, though there's been more discussions of that than grains of sand and having one is not my desire. But no matter what the opinion I think as the rush of the New wears off people who are attracted to photo quality have similar views, or at least see the possibilities film offers for the first time - and want to try it.</p>

<p><br /> Anything new and quickly widespread will fade a bit after time in instant preoccupation, and in the relaxation from that other ways including "old" ways will be seen - and tried.</p>

<p><br /> You can do both after all as has been said. They each have plusses and are different mediums. Should you have no footwear other than boots? Or only red underwear?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Lex,<br /> That is indeed a De Vere 203. We also have two Durst Laborators (Ce 1000 and 1000), two LPL C7700s, and two Durst 305s (one with colour head). We will be able to handle all formats from 5x4 down to 35mm.</p>

[wogears]

<p>If anyone is still following this thread there is a <a href="https://musescupaul.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/why-i-prefer-film-over-the-digital/">blog post</a> that's a bit interesting, and speaks to the "age thing".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Les, that article doesn't seem to me to speak to anything. "I shoot film so I can spend more time with my family that I don't yet have? Really? Pretty unsound reasoning to me. If someone wants to shoot film, they should by all means shoot film. Trying to "justify" it, like he does, however, is ridiculous. Then again, he's sixteen. We're not.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>We are not the only ones.</p>

<div></div>

[John Seaman]

<p>Chris great to hear about the new darkroom, best of luck with it. I wish I lived near to Bristol.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Les, it speaks mostly about the age thing in the sense that 16 year olds are easy to influence with hyperbolic false dichotomies, the lure of a community sense ("the Hipster family") and are easy to change opinions radically. After a majestic 4 months of experience with a DSLR, he comes to all these conclusions already?<br>

I'm glad for the kid he's having fun, he's got a few nice photos up. But most of the arguments are the default zealotry of digital-vs-film debates (I love the default characterisation of digital shooters, shooting millions of photos without watching, and after spending the rest of time post processing), none of those arguments sounding really authentically his own.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>The other side of the new darkroom.</p><div></div>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>Down under,<br>

I run a Develop & Proof B/W service lab. My customers are mainly 30'ish or younger,and 70% female.<br>

I was tempted to start production of buggy whips,but I think the global demand is probably satisfied by several suppliers.<br>

Niche? - certainly.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Wouter: Ain't limited to sixteen-year-olds, trust me. There is, however, the distinct possibility that the "kids today" have mostly <em>seen</em> spray-and-pray digital types. I've personally never shot more than about four "rolls" in a day with my DSLR/MILC or whatever, but I've seen the result of the "here's my lunch" crowd.</p>